Curse

fenix · Feb 11, 2008, 01:39 PM // 13:39

Myself and Sha Noran, after both seeing the movie Cloverfield, decided to look into the Cloverfield 'monster'. In his infinite wisdom, Sha had already set the ground work for our theory, I simply provided evidence and another point of view. After analysing the movie, we have found almost concrete proof that shows the following. There is not one 'monster', there are several. At our current count, there are at least four, possible LOTS more that were not properly shown.

Below are pictures I have put together that clearly show that it cannot be the one monster throughout the entire movie.

Firstly, I looked at the fact that it did not make sense that the tail of the monster could destroy Brooklyn Bridge, yet seem to be much smaller on the News reports. Here are my examples;

Here is the tail as seen on the news, between the two buildings. Although slightly hard to see, you can see that it is thin, and not TOO long.

Here we see the tail that destroys the Brooklyn Bridge. Now, as you must take into account, the bridge is 85 feet wide, and from the picture you can tell that the tail is VERY large. Looking at the two pictures, it is clear that they are not the same, as the sizes are obviously very different.

On to the next part, the actual 'monster'.

During the movie, there are three CLEAR views of the 'monster'. First of which, is when the characters are in the street and the military begin firing at it. I outlined the monster to show what it looks like in the scene.

As you can see, the monster has a long neck, which flares similar to a cobra. It also has a very snake-like head. In comparison, this is the picture of the monster that gets hit by the air strike;

This is also outlined, to show the size of it. Here it is again without the outlines;

This monster has a very small neck (cannot be seen too clearly in this picture, but can be in others), and has a bulky head, unlike the above picture.

But the most obvious part was the scene in which Hud gets attacked by the monster, and killed. This CANNOT be the same monster that has been throughout the city, due the fact that it is so much smaller, as you can see below.

In the frames leading up to this shot, it is clear that the monster would only be around 20 feet in height, as you can see due to the perspective of the camera in relation to the other characters.

From this, we have come to the conclusion that there are at least four monsters in the movie. These are;

1) The monster that tears off the head of the Statue of Liberty and throws it through the city, which also destroys the Brooklyn Bridge. Has a very large tail, also would be very large itself, but is not shown in full.

2) The monster that is shown on the news, moving through the city, and later is hit by the air strike.

3) The monster that is shown being attacked by the military, with the snake-like face and neck. Also seems to be slightly smaller than the 2nd one.

4) The monster that attacks and kills Hud. Clearly not the same as the others, as its size makes it impossible to have been the one destroying the city.

Due to the fact that there are already smaller monsters like the 4th, this leads us to believe that there are possible numerous other monsters roaming the city, that were not shown as the focus was on the main characters' path through the city.

Comments are welcome

Aera · Feb 11, 2008, 01:42 PM // 13:42

Blah, I thought you'd actually had an answer to where the monster came from, what happened afterwards etc.

Still nice 'facts' though

fenix · Feb 11, 2008, 01:44 PM // 13:44

We're working on it, will have more answers as we go through all the info we can. We're limited on what we can find out, as we only have the same information as everyone else

RhanoctJocosa · Feb 11, 2008, 01:49 PM // 13:49

fenixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sha Noran · Feb 11, 2008, 02:19 PM // 14:19

Well done finding visual evidence of my theory Fenix, you lined it out quite well. After the first time I saw the movie it seemed painfully obvious to me that either there were a variety of monsters all in the city simultaneously or that the producers/directors/writers had just been lazy and hadn't cared too much about scale continuity. Considering that this is coming to us from the same guy who masterminded LOST, in which no detail is unimportant and extreme caution is taken to keep everyone very intentionally and carefully confused, I have to assume that laziness or disinterest in continuity are factors. Therefore, it is obvious to me that there are several monsters.

Some points that Fenix and I have specified could be argued with, but clearly, clearly, the monster whose tail destroyed Brooklyn Bridge with ease CANNOT be the same monster who kills Hud at the end of the film. The size variation is impossibly vast and ignoring it is ridiculous.

A couple of points that you didn't mention, Fenix, that we had discussed previously I guess I'll go ahead and rehash now, since you went to the trouble of making a thread. Here we go...

Just after I saw Cloverfield the first time myself, I scoured the internet searching for some direct answers on some things that I was curious about. Very impressively, I couldn't (and still can't; kudos to Abrams for understanding how to prevent massive leakage of his work), however I did find a large amount of theory craft regarding the monster(s), their origins, and analysis of the film's events overall. In particular, one lengthy post from a self proclaimed Cloverfield enthusiast declared that, as an inhabitant of Manhattan for many years, he was absolutely sure that unless there were continuity issues (which I have already stated that I do not believe to be the case), it is physically impossible for one monster to be in all of the places the video camera glimpses it in at the times that it is viewed.

Impressively, he then went on to detail the characters' route throughout the city and contrasted that with the "one-monster theory" path of destruction, even including maps which he had meticulously drawn on to show exactly what he meant. After seeing that, it became even more clear that my initial speculation that there was more than one monster had to be correct.

Also, when the camcorder crew run into the soldiers battling the monster just as they head for the subway, isn't it a little odd that there's only maybe 20 soldiers there? I mean, maybe 30, my memory could be a little foggy, but it certainly wasn't more than 50. If this is just one huge, massive, ridiculously sized monster that is capable of throwing the head of the statue of liberty all the way through Manhattan, why would you even send a small squad of men at it? The bullets... they do nothing. You would have EVERY available resource dumping everything they've got on that thing.

I'm not going to drag on and on and turn this into too much more of a wall of text than it already is, but I would just like to tag on that a very minimal amount of internet research will demonstrate that there is clearly more to this movie than anyone but a select few are aware of. It's overly convenient that Rob just happens to have taken a job in Japan working as a higher up for Slusho!, which is owned by Tagruato, which puts a secret ingredient into Slusho! which is very suspicious, and it just happens to get this ingredient from it's deep sea drilling which VERY LIKELY is what woke the monsters up in the first place. What is the connection with the satellite that we see falling into the water at the end of the movie during the Coney Island footage? What the hell is up with the dog-sized spider-crab-parasites that have venom that makes bite victims explode? Did Rob and Beth even die? Why is the incident codenamed Cloverfield? Is it significant that when the helicopter crash lands in Central Park, the characters find themselves in, yes, literally, a field of clovers?

Frankly, I'm hooked. I eagerly await the next movie... and all of the ones that follow after that.

Jeremy Untouchable · Feb 11, 2008, 02:36 PM // 14:36

nice, i must watch this movie again...

Drakken Breathes Fire · Feb 11, 2008, 02:38 PM // 14:38

I stand corrected; looking at the concept art changes my position greatly;

http://api.ning.com/files/vXizctlnwF...steConcept.jpg

Think that big guy theres tail could've destroyed the bridge? Think that medium sized guy could have killed Hud? I think there might have been more than 3 different types of monsters appearing in cloverfield now.. I dont remember seeing very much of the SUPER HUGE WHALE monster in the movie. Only the lice and the really small 'blow you up guys.' It seems to me like the big guy was vary rarely shown in the film, which is a bloody shame. (Unless they severely changed his design.)

They *DO* however, still show a small meteor or comet fall into the water in the last clip of the 'date' shown in the cam corder.
Suggested this is where the monster came from, since the first attack was on the oil tanker.

thedeadwalk! · Feb 11, 2008, 06:37 PM // 18:37

I have to disagree with the "long neck" photo. The line on the left is in the middle of the monster's right leg. And the long line going around the circular one is crossing right over the upper body line of the monster continuing to its stomach area. I think the photo below it shows the same monster, at least as far as the upper body goes (I can't see anything else).

As for his tail, it could be a matter of distance for the size discrepancy. The first photo shows it from a few blocks away, while the bridge picture is much closer.

I'm only led to believe there was one monster. The smaller monsters were parasites on the larger one, and not one themselves. Any errors in the shape of the monster shown I chalk up to intentional fudging of the looks to make a scene look right. And there is only ever reference to one monster as is claerly shown in the trailer when the army guy says "whatever it is, it's winning." The army may not have known where it came from, but certainly, with their planes, they would have an idea of how many there were.

Sha Noran · Feb 11, 2008, 06:46 PM // 18:46

The falling object pictured at the end of the film was a satellite owned by the Japanese. Logical reasoning might lead you to conclude that this object was, in fact, the one that awakened the monster... or if you were even less informed regarding the tidbits of facts that you can find on the internet that were not expressly described in the film, you might assume that the creature was of extra-terrestrial origin and this was it's arrival.

Abrams has confirmed, however, that the attack on New York City originated from the deep sea. Granted, he's a man who knows how to word things ambiguously... perhaps the primary creature originated from the deepest recesses of the ocean, and the parasites are alien in origin and agitated him to the point of auto-attacking the nearest coastline.

However, I would have to theorize that it is, in fact, the Tagruato corporation's deep sea drilling that has agitated and awakened the monsters. Many factors support this theory; firstly, the multiple monster hypothesis which has already been detailed by myself and Fenix. If such a massive monster were to exist in the ocean for "thousands and thousands of years" as Abrams has been quoted as saying, then it follows that there must be more than one creature down there, and they could easily be being disturbed all around the globe, as evidenced by this interactive map of the Tagruato drill sites. (I'll toss out a few source links throughout this post, in case you're looking for more in depth information than the movie itself offers; these sites were created by Abrams to be additional information for those clever enough to find them.)

http://www.tagruato.jp/deepsea2.php

As you can see on the map, the Chuai Station is scheduled to open September 2007, which is just prior to the Cloverfield incident in the alternate timeline Abrams has created. You will also note, I'm sure, that this station is located nearest to Manhattan. This cannot be a coincidence, when all of the other stations on the map are listed as already operational.

Aside from this evidence, along with a good deal more if one were to take the time to browse the extensive tidbits of information that can be found on the rest of Tagruato's website (http://www.tagruato.jp/), I would have to say that basic physics makes it impossible that the falling satellite awakened the monsters. Keep in mind that the creatures we're discussing are apparently unaffected by conventional modern weaponry, ranging from small arms fire to carpet bombing. Explain to me how an object fell from space, and then kept enough momentum all the way through thousands and thousands of meters of water to hit such a creature with enough force to agitate it into attack mode. This of course also ignores the fact that the area where the object could be visibly seen falling into the water is no where near the shelf drop off to the deep sea. Unless there is some type of alien bacteria or parasite on the object that fell in the water, it's not possible that it directly affected the awakening of the monster(s).

Once you've had enough fun making yourself wish you knew what the hell those creepy Japanese people on the Tagruato website were on about, give http://www.slusho.jp/ a try. It's even more enigmatic, but keep in mind that these websites only exist to provide additional clues and information to those clever enough to locate and decode it.

Unlucky Slayer · Feb 11, 2008, 06:54 PM // 18:54

http://www.freewebs.com/mmxcalibur/Sin.jpg

You sure its not just Sin from FFX?

Sha Noran · Feb 11, 2008, 07:05 PM // 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedeadwalk!

I have to disagree with the "long neck" photo. The line on the left is in the middle of the monster's right leg.

I believe you are correct that the line on the left is it's leg, and thus it may be similar in structure to the other various monsters encountered and much less snake-like than Fenix and I presumed from that single screen shot. However I think that the size discrepancies are too vast to be ignored or chalked up to fudging; the Brooklyn Bridge is massive and his tail easily sliced through it, while in many shots of what is presumed by many to be "the" monster, it's tail is rather unexciting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedeadwalk!

I'm only led to believe there was one monster. The smaller monsters were parasites on the larger one, and not one themselves. Any errors in the shape of the monster shown I chalk up to intentional fudging of the looks to make a scene look right. And there is only ever reference to one monster as is claerly shown in the trailer when the army guy says "whatever it is, it's winning." The army may not have known where it came from, but certainly, with their planes, they would have an idea of how many there were.

Yes, the Army officer quote is one of the strongest cases for the single monster theory, however we know that there are a great deal of monsters already because of the small alien-dog-parasite dudes. In my opinion, if I was an Army officer, I would be way more concerned about those, if there were really only one large one. The Air Force is going to be taking care of the hugely massive guy with helicopters and bombing, etc. You wouldn't deploy infantry to deal with something on that scale, especially after it's obvious that bullets and rockets aren't going to do shit. Now if there were a large number of smaller yet still very sizable monsters (i.e. Hud-eaters), I might definitely want some infantry out there firing RPGs and machine guns to see if it did any good.

One point I will give you is that yes, I believe that all of the infestation of New York is all from one source beast on which they were parasitically connected in some way, much the way there are a vast number of organisms living on any one whale. The concept art link posted by Drakken above is a wonderful example of just what I mean (http://tinyurl.com/yqfqvo); the ridiculously huge beast pictured next to the statue of liberty is what I think destroyed the bridge and the tanker, and maybe decapitated the Statue of Liberty, however beyond that I don't think he ever left the water. The roar you might remember being heard probably came from that bad boy too, and it's possible I suppose that he caused the massive explosion that Hud films in the middle of downtown, but not enough footage or information is given in the film to make a solid call about that. Everything else is just deep sea ridiculousness that tagged along for the rampage.

Tyla · Feb 11, 2008, 07:13 PM // 19:13

...Cool.

Drakken Breathes Fire · Feb 11, 2008, 07:16 PM // 19:16

We'll never truly know for sure until Habsro releases the 14" toy September 30th.

thedeadwalk! · Feb 11, 2008, 07:41 PM // 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sha Noran

The concept art link posted by Drakken above is a wonderful example of just what I mean (http://tinyurl.com/yqfqvo); the ridiculously huge beast pictured next to the statue of liberty is what I think destroyed the bridge and the tanker, and maybe decapitated the Statue of Liberty, however beyond that I don't think he ever left the water.

I've seen that picture floated around a lot since November at least, and think it to be just concept art and nothing more. Many ideas get drawn up for movies that are never used after all.

The idea about it destroying the statue and staying in the water is too much speculation without evidence from the movie to suggest it, for me. I know Abrams is a crafty fellow, but until more is known I'm keeping with one monster.

Drakken Breathes Fire · Feb 11, 2008, 09:11 PM // 21:11

I also remember reading an article on the realistic(?) effects of the MOAB weapon against the Cloverfield monster stating it was over 500 feet tall. (Based on that piece of information is it that hard to believe it's tal could smash an 85 foot bridge? In nature it's not uncommon for tails to be much longer than the creature is tall.

fenix · Feb 11, 2008, 10:37 PM // 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drakken Breathes Fire

I also remember reading an article on the realistic(?) effects of the MOAB weapon against the Cloverfield monster stating it was over 500 feet tall. (Based on that piece of information is it that hard to believe it's tal could smash an 85 foot bridge? In nature it's not uncommon for tails to be much longer than the creature is tall.

It isn't that it's hard to believe the size issue, but simply that as the creature is shown in the movie, it is a much smaller size to the tail that destroys the bridge. If the movie was by any other director, I would probably dismiss it as laziness and that it is one monster. Because it is by J. J. Abrams, you know that it is not simply a mistake and that all the tiny details are intentional.

One thing that myself and Sha went over, was the idea that the monster that destroys the Statue of Liberty and the Bridge, does not actually leave the water. This point I am leaning strongly towards, due to the fact that the size of it would not be 'right'. Also, the monster is in the water to destroy the bridge, but shortly after, Hud is watching the news through the camera, and the creature is in the city dropping the parasitic dog monsters. The time between the two makes me think that they were probably filming the monster in the city too close to the destruction of the bridge, as the footage of this comes later.

It is to my knowledge of the film that I think there are more than one monster. The main point that I have, is that the monster that kills Hud, CANNOT be the one that destroyed the bridge. It cannot. This simple fact means that there are at LEAST two monsters roaming the city, and although the soldier says "whatever it is, it's winning", pointing towards the singular, he might simply not know, as he also says "if they know, they aren't telling me".

As for the snake-like picture, I am starting to agree that it probably is a leg, but the head is still different enough from the other shots and I am apprehensive to dismiss it as the same monster.

sreeja · Feb 12, 2008, 06:58 AM // 06:58

I really don't like the movie.But i can;t say that it is bad.

Sha Noran · Feb 12, 2008, 10:28 AM // 10:28

After looking over the amount of evidence that Fenix and I have centralized in this thread (it certainly isn't all thought of by us alone, that's absurd), I'm beginning to think that the giant twist of Cloverfield 2 will be the fact that there is more than one monster.

Abrams has cleverly already left plenty of room for Godzilla 7: Mecha Godzilla by having a bunch of Godzillas in the first place, rather than forcing himself to create more later as an excuse for a sequel. In my opinion, it's been left intentionally ambiguous as to whether there's one monster or more... sure, all we had was one camcorder angle, but if there was just one super badass monster, how could they have resisted the big money shot? Keep in mind that the sequel will likely intersect paths with the first on the bridge with the tail that we're so hotly debating:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Reeves

There's a moment on the Brooklyn Bridge, and there was a guy filming something on the side of the bridge, and Hud sees him filming and he turns over and he sees the ship that's been capsized and sees the headless Statue of Liberty, and then he turns back and this guy's briefly filming him. In my mind that was two movies intersecting for a brief moment, and I thought there was something interesting in the idea that this incident happened and there are so many different points of view, and there are several different movies at least happening that evening and we just saw one piece of another.

Granted, I've been wrong before... but it's rare. =]

Kerwyn Nasilan · Feb 13, 2008, 03:47 AM // 03:47

VERY interesting. Will have to go see the movie.

Rexion · Feb 13, 2008, 08:40 PM // 20:40

or... you can take into consideration... that it is like the "Jaws Theory"

when they were filming Jaws and Jaws 2... they had SEVERAL (10+) sharks for several different operations, but in the end it was still 1 shark. Well, even if this is animated... they still could just a lot of different monsters for different things, but in the end it is still 1 monster.